State Cop Shoots at Minivan Full of Kids
Now the driver and her son are facing charges while New Mexico State Police are investigating the officers involved.
It all started Oct. 28 on a state highway south of Taos. A State Police officer pulled over Oriana Ferrell's minivan for going 71 mphr in a 55 mph zone. In the minivan with her were her five kids. The Taos News reports the children range in age from 6 to 18.
On dash cam video released to KRQE News 13 Friday you can see Ferrell and the officer argue after Ferrell couldn't decide whether to pay the $126 fine or contest it in court. The officer instructs her to turn her vehicle off and stay put before walking back to his car.
http://www.krqe.com/news/crime/state-cop-shoots-at-minivan-full-of-kids
She shouldn't have drove off, but that doesn't justify the violent police response -- one of the kids in there could have easily been killed.
Cops needs to chill the fuck out instead of play Rambo all the time.
"Measured response" is the order of the day.
That is all.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Yeah, a lot of wrong doing here, including the mom, who didn't keep it under control for the kids sake.
And, what did we learn here? When driving from another state while black, one should have come prepared with a certificate from the defensive course in, "being pulled over while black".
Now, it's gonna be a mess for all… I'd love to see the due process trigger happy baton twirlers get for their role. 
I white male in a 3 piece suit driving an Escalade would never have been stopped in the first place, speeding or not!
years ago. I had to mail it in and since I wasn't going back anytime soon I couldn't contest it, and I wasn't speeding and he didn't have a radar ticket. I had my cruise control on so I know I wasn't speeding but as soon as I came over the hill, his lights went on.
I think all he had time to do was to see I had out of state plates.
doesn't surprise me. This is amerikkka and black people don't resist white cops for any reason and if they do and are armed or unarmed, risk immediate death by execution. They were just black kids
No biggie in shooting INTO van. No they would NOT have shot into a van full of white kids. Period. No she shouldn't have driven off, I do not understand that, but she was unarmed and so was the kid. No excuse on shooting into that van. Protect and serve my ass, stop and execute is more like it.
Maybe I could understand if one of the kids was Honey Boo Boo or a couple of LA house maids.
"She endangered herself, her kids, and the public by running from the police no matter the reason. " Agree, but that's no excuse to try to kill her. If endangering the children is wrong then the police should get prosecuted also.
You are right she shouldnt have been scared. But maybe she was afraid of bad treatment by the police. Not that that happens. She was wrong and will be punished and the police were wrong and they will be rewarded. High fives at the cop bar.
"The cops figure they have a right to kill anyone that does not obey them. " You read about it in the paper every day where someone tries to get away from the police and they get killed, usually with 100 bullet holes.
"Don't go assuming every cop wants to kill people with impunity. They don't. " And I didnt say every cop. NO cops should think that they can kill with impunity, yet you read about it all the time. Example, a couple calls the police because they cant handle their special needs son. So the police show up and promptly shoot him to death. More high fives at the cop bar. Oh yeah, near here a mentally ill man was in a tree and wouldnt come down. Bingo-bango they shot hime. A well know homeless man in Seattle was crossing the street carving a piece of wood. He was drunk and didnt respond fast enough and was shot dead in front of his friends.
It's only a very small number of police that are psychopaths but that's still too many.
Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 08:18 AM - Edit history (1)
You either know that choosing the plural is an outright lie or have paid so little attention to the video and available information that you simply are oblivious to the fact that ONE 14 year old child was attempting by all appearances to protect his very frightened mother who was being assaulted at the time by an armed and violent MAN. If there is another possible conclusion it eludes me.
What would you have done watching as your Mom was being assaulted by a man that was behaving violently while armed with lethal weaponry? His reaction was in no way difficult to understand, his bravery in attempting to protect his mother from potential death by a violent and lethally armed man without a weapon of his own to assist him at the age of 14 was perhaps noteworthy as it could have caused his death. The bravery of the (one could argue foolish) decision to possibly die to protect her might have been difficult to understand if he were older and could be expected to completely understand the gravity of the danger to himself, but he is only a child. Children usually simply react to such strong emotions as would be felt by viewing the distress and fear of the child's mother being attacked, children react rather than deliberate and so such a reaction is not really very surprising.
Your choice of framing could lead one to believe you were implying a group of unknown numbers of possibly "dangerous thugs" attacked an innocent public servant perhaps to distract from the actual fact that one child reacted to his very frightened mother being attacked by an armed and violent man.
One might also think such framing (with the seemingly deliberate misuse of the plural and the generic "passengers"
were words chosen quite deliberately. One might also note the very repetitive use of the phrase (in multiple posts) a technique known by many to be used by propagandists to push misinformation into the subconscious as a fact rather than the misinformation it is.
One very well might think rather poorly of you if one were to take such repetitive incorrect phrasing as such an implication.
Perhaps more than "one" might, perhaps multiple readers might.
So.
At least ONE is now asking, "What is your motive for misstating the the facts repeatedly via, 'the passengers assaulted him'"?
.... the new police state. I thought Florida was bad. Wasn't it New Mexico where the guy in the WalMart parking lot put his hands on his backside when he was getting in or out of his vehicle and they ended up reaming the guy with every kind of probe imaginable looking for dope?
In this case, the woman was wrong to drive away when being cited for speeding. What the fuck was she thinking, for God's sake??? But when he pulled her over the 2nd time, he had no right to be so violent, yelling at her to get out of the vehicle. The cop was no longer civil. Then help arrives to protect the first cop from the vehicle with the woman and her five kids (or was it six?) and together they crash the back windows with all those kids in there? And then another one shoots at the vehicle as the mother gets the hell out of there?
Moral of this story: Don't ever argue with a police officer in New Mexico. EVER. If you was speeding with kids in the car, fess up and take the ticket. Then you'll get a chewing out and then on the way you will go. Assume that that cop will go violent on you, even if you just look at him a bit cross-eyed. Yes sir, no sir is the order of the day, OK? Don't EVER give a cop a reason. That's all they want. One teeny-tiny little reason.
We live in a police state now. Hell, I guess we need to talk scenarios over with the kids in case we are stopped by the police? Common sense don't make sense anymore. Dayamn! 
